SAMUEL JOHNSON, examined by Mr. Mitchell, stated: I am assistant engineer and surveyor for the Marine Board. I have had two and a-half years’ experience in that capacity. I have had about five years’ experience at sea as third and chief engineer. I signed the declaration with Mr. McLean. Alongside the wharf I tested the vessel under steam to see to the safety valve. The test was satisfactory. Mr. McLean inspected everything else. I only saw the vessel in dock for about half an hour. Cross-examined by Mr. Smyth: So far as the steam was concerned I made a thorough examination. I signed the declaration for that part of the survey which I did. I made no examination of the vessel’s hull. I daresay my examination took over an hour alongside the wharf, and on that I gave the certificate. So far as I was concerned that authorised the _Alert_ to go to sea. [Illustration: Decoration] [Illustration: Decoration] KILPATRICK v. HUDDART, PARKER & CO., LTD. SEVENTH DAY, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1895. _Evidence for the Defendants.—(Continued.)_ THOMAS WEBB, examined by Mr. Purves, stated: I am a master mariner, and a member of the firm of Huddart, Parker & Co. I knew the S. S. _Alert_. She was built under my special superintendence at Glasgow. She was classed ninety A1. I have had experience in the navigation and building of ships. When finished the _Alert_ was a sea-worthy ship. The pantry window was built in her during her construction. I was master of her for about twelve years, and my opinion was that she was a very fine sea-boat. The alteration of her engines gave her more lift aft, about five inches. During the twelve years I was in command, she ran every day whatever the weather was. I saw no indication in her of a danger of shipping seas. In my time no water went in at the pantry window, nor in the grating, which latter was four feet lower then than when she was lost. She was insured for £4,000. She stood in my ledger at that time at £13,000, and we were satisfied to stand the risk of £9,000.